Why AI Needs NVIDIA: The Untold Story of Hardware, Software, and Perfect Timing
By David Gassier — October 20, 2025 — 18 min read
Why AI Needs NVIDIA: The Untold Story of Hardware, Software, and Perfect Timing
AI Infrastructure Deep Dive
Published: October 2025 | Reading time: 18 minutes
TL;DR: NVIDIA dominates AI with 70-95% market share through a perfect storm of GPU architecture suited for parallel processing, a $10 billion investment in the CUDA software ecosystem starting in 2007, perfect timing with the 2012 AlexNet breakthrough, and continuous evolution into a full-stack AI infrastructure provider. Understanding this dominance is crucial for making informed decisions about AI infrastructure in manufacturing, robotics, and enterprise applications.
A deep dive into the technical and strategic reasons behind NVIDIA's dominance in artificial intelligence
Introduction: A Baffling Reality
If you've been following the artificial intelligence revolution, you've likely encountered a puzzling reality: nearly every major AI breakthrough—from ChatGPT to autonomous vehicles to medical imaging systems—runs on NVIDIA hardware. The company's market valuation has soared past $3 trillion, and its GPUs command 70-95% of the AI accelerator market (Mizuho Securities, 2024). For many business leaders and technologists, this raises an obvious question: Why does AI need NVIDIA?
The answer is more nuanced than "they make the best chips." NVIDIA's dominance stems from a unique convergence of technical architecture, strategic foresight, ecosystem development, and—perhaps most importantly—perfect timing. This article explores the deep technical and business reasons behind NVIDIA's position at the center of the AI revolution, and what it means for the future of artificial intelligence in manufacturing, robotics, and beyond.
Part I: The Technical Foundation—Why GPUs, Not CPUs?
The Parallel Processing Revolution
To understand why AI needs NVIDIA, we must first understand why AI needs GPUs (Graphics Processing Units) rather than traditional CPUs (Central Processing Units). The answer lies in the fundamental nature of artificial intelligence computations.
Modern AI, particularly deep learning, relies on matrix multiplication—performing the same mathematical operation on millions or billions of data points simultaneously. Consider training a neural network: each neuron's activation requires multiplying input values by weights, summing the results, and applying an activation function. For a network with millions of parameters processing thousands of images, this translates to trillions of simple arithmetic operations.
CPUs are designed for sequential processing. A high-end CPU might have 64 cores, each optimized for complex, varied tasks executed one after another. This architecture excels at general-purpose computing—running operating systems, managing databases, executing business logic—but struggles with the massively parallel workloads that define AI (Buber & Banu, 2018).
GPUs, by contrast, are designed for parallel processing. A modern NVIDIA GPU contains thousands of smaller, simpler cores specifically optimized for performing the same operation on many data points simultaneously. The NVIDIA H100, for example, contains over 16,000 CUDA cores. This architecture, originally developed for rendering graphics (where millions of pixels must be processed in parallel), turns out to be perfectly suited for AI workloads (Baji, 2017).
The performance difference is staggering. Research shows that GPUs can be 10 to 100 times faster than CPUs for machine learning tasks, depending on the specific workload and hardware configuration (Pure Storage, 2025). For training large neural networks, this isn't just a convenience—it's the difference between weeks and months of training time, or between feasibility and impossibility.
Code Example: Matrix Multiplication (CPU vs GPU)
Here's a simplified illustration of how the same operation—multiplying two matrices—differs fundamentally between CPU and GPU approaches:
CPU Approach (Sequential):
# CPU: Process one element at a time
def matrix_multiply_cpu(A, B):
result = [[0] * len(B[0]) for _ in range(len(A))]
for i in range(len(A)): # Iterate rows
for j in range(len(B[0])): # Iterate columns
for k in range(len(B)): # Multiply and sum
result[i][j] += A[i][k] * B[k][j]
return result
# For 1000x1000 matrices: ~1 billion operations, executed sequentially
# Typical CPU time: 2-5 seconds
GPU Approach (Parallel with CUDA):
import cupy as cp # CUDA-accelerated NumPy
# GPU: Process ALL elements simultaneously
def matrix_multiply_gpu(A, B):
A_gpu = cp.asarray(A) # Transfer to GPU memory
B_gpu = cp.asarray(B)
result = cp.matmul(A_gpu, B_gpu) # Thousands of cores work in parallel
return cp.asnumpy(result) # Transfer back to CPU
# Same 1000x1000 matrices: Operations distributed across 16,000+ CUDA cores
# Typical GPU time: 0.02-0.05 seconds (100× faster)
The GPU doesn't just run the same code faster—it fundamentally parallelizes the computation, with thousands of cores each handling different elements simultaneously. This is why matrix-heavy AI operations achieve such dramatic speedups on GPUs.
Memory Bandwidth: The Hidden Bottleneck
Beyond raw compute power, modern AI workloads are increasingly memory-bound rather than compute-bound. This means the limiting factor isn't how fast you can perform calculations, but how quickly you can move data to and from the processors.
NVIDIA's high-end GPUs address this with High Bandwidth Memory (HBM)—specialized memory technology that provides dramatically higher data transfer rates than standard memory. The H100, for instance, features 80GB of HBM3 memory with bandwidth exceeding 3 TB/s. This allows the GPU to keep its thousands of cores fed with data, preventing them from sitting idle waiting for information.
This memory bandwidth advantage is why even companies developing alternative AI chips (like Huawei and Cambricon in China) struggle to match NVIDIA's performance. Manufacturing HBM requires advanced packaging technology and access to specialized suppliers (primarily Samsung and SK Hynix), creating a significant barrier to entry.
Part II: The Strategic Masterstroke—CUDA and the Software Moat
The Birth of CUDA: A $10 Billion Bet
While NVIDIA's hardware advantages are significant, they don't fully explain the company's dominance. The real secret lies in a strategic decision made in 2007—five years before the AI revolution began.
In 2007, NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang launched CUDA (Compute Unified Device Architecture), a proprietary programming platform that allowed developers to write general-purpose code for NVIDIA GPUs using familiar C/C++ syntax. At the time, this was a controversial decision. GPUs were seen as niche accelerators for graphics rendering, and investing heavily in general-purpose computing seemed risky.
"We took a bet on programmable shading and CUDA at a time when people thought we were crazy. We invested $10 billion over 15 years when there was no market. But we believed in accelerated computing."
— Jensen Huang, NVIDIA CEO (Kim, 2024, p. 187)
Huang's vision was prescient. He recognized that GPUs' parallel processing capabilities could revolutionize scientific computing, even though the specific applications weren't yet clear. NVIDIA invested an estimated $10 billion over the following decade in developing CUDA, creating libraries, building developer tools, and working directly with researchers to port algorithms to GPUs (Cusumano, 2024).
This investment created what business strategists call a "moat"—a competitive advantage that's extremely difficult for rivals to replicate. CUDA isn't just a programming language; it's an entire ecosystem of optimized libraries, debugging tools, profiling utilities, and community knowledge that has accumulated over 17 years.
The Ecosystem Advantage
CUDA's value lies in its ecosystem, not just its performance. Consider what a developer gains by using CUDA:
Optimized Libraries: cuDNN (deep learning), cuBLAS (linear algebra), cuFFT (fast Fourier transforms), and dozens more—each representing years of optimization work by NVIDIA engineers.
Framework Integration: PyTorch, TensorFlow, JAX, and every major AI framework have native CUDA backends, meaning developers can write high-level Python code that automatically leverages GPU acceleration.
Community Knowledge: Millions of developers have used CUDA, creating extensive documentation, tutorials, Stack Overflow answers, and troubleshooting guides.
Continuous Improvement: CUDA is updated regularly with new features, optimizations, and support for emerging AI techniques.
Switching away from CUDA means abandoning this entire ecosystem. Developers must rewrite code, substitute less mature libraries, and lose access to community support. These switching costs are enormous—typically 6-18 months of engineering effort for large codebases (Huang, 2024).
This is why even when competitors develop hardware with comparable or superior specifications, they struggle to gain market share. AMD's ROCm, Intel's oneAPI, and Huawei's CANN all face the same challenge: they're competing not just with NVIDIA's chips, but with 17 years of ecosystem development.
Part III: The AlexNet Moment—Perfect Timing Meets Preparation
2012: The Year Everything Changed
NVIDIA's strategic investments in CUDA and GPU computing might have remained a niche scientific computing tool if not for a pivotal moment in 2012: AlexNet.
AlexNet was a convolutional neural network developed by Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoffrey Hinton at the University of Toronto. Participating in the ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challenge (ILSVRC), AlexNet achieved a top-5 error rate of 15.3%—compared to 26.2% for the second-place entry. This wasn't an incremental improvement; it was a paradigm shift that demonstrated deep learning's potential for solving real-world problems (Krizhevsky et al., 2012).
The key to AlexNet's success was training on GPUs. Specifically, the team used two NVIDIA GTX 580 GPUs, leveraging CUDA to implement model parallelism—splitting the network across GPUs to handle its size and complexity. Without GPU acceleration, training AlexNet would have taken weeks or months on CPUs, making the research impractical.
As Krizhevsky noted in the original paper: "The network's architecture consists of five convolutional and three fully-connected layers, and its depth was found to be crucial for its performance" (Krizhevsky et al., 2012, p. 1). This depth—enabled by GPU training—was revolutionary.
The Flywheel Effect
AlexNet's success triggered a flywheel effect that propelled NVIDIA to the center of AI research:
Researchers adopted GPUs: After AlexNet, every AI researcher wanted GPU access for training deep networks.
NVIDIA invested in AI: Recognizing the opportunity, NVIDIA doubled down on AI-specific features, creating specialized tensor cores and AI-optimized libraries.
Frameworks optimized for CUDA: PyTorch, TensorFlow, and other frameworks built native CUDA support, making NVIDIA GPUs the default choice.
More research breakthroughs: GPU-accelerated research led to advances in natural language processing (transformers), computer vision (ResNet, YOLO), and reinforcement learning (AlphaGo).
Industry adoption: As AI moved from research to production, companies naturally chose NVIDIA hardware because their models were already optimized for it.
Each step reinforced the next, creating a self-sustaining cycle that made NVIDIA increasingly indispensable. By the time competitors recognized the opportunity, NVIDIA had a multi-year head start and an entrenched ecosystem.
Part IV: The Three-Headed Hydra—Hardware, Networking, and Software
Beyond the Chip: A Complete System
As AI workloads scaled from single GPUs to massive data centers, NVIDIA evolved from a chip company to a full-stack AI infrastructure provider. Industry analyst Doug O'Laughlin describes NVIDIA's advantage as a "three-headed hydra" of leading hardware, networking capabilities, and deeply entrenched software (McMahon, 2025).
Hardware: NVIDIA's GPUs continue to lead in raw performance, with each generation (Volta, Turing, Ampere, Hopper, Blackwell) delivering significant improvements in AI-specific metrics like tensor operations per second and memory bandwidth.
Networking: Training frontier AI models like GPT-4 or Gemini requires distributing computation across thousands of GPUs. NVIDIA's acquisition of Mellanox (for $6.9 billion in 2020) gave them InfiniBand and Ethernet networking technology optimized for GPU-to-GPU communication. Their NVLink and NVSwitch technologies enable high-bandwidth, low-latency connections between GPUs, critical for large-scale training.
Software: Beyond CUDA, NVIDIA provides complete software stacks for different AI applications—NVIDIA AI Enterprise for data centers, NVIDIA DRIVE for autonomous vehicles, NVIDIA Clara for healthcare, and more. Each includes domain-specific optimizations, pre-trained models, and integration with industry-standard tools.
This full-stack approach means customers can deploy AI solutions faster and more reliably, further entrenching NVIDIA's position.
The Data Center Transformation
NVIDIA's strategy has transformed data centers from CPU-centric to GPU-centric architectures. Modern AI data centers are designed around GPU clusters, with CPUs relegated to supporting roles. NVIDIA's DGX systems—integrated GPU servers optimized for AI—have become the standard building blocks for AI infrastructure at companies like Microsoft, Google, Meta, and OpenAI.
The financial impact is staggering. NVIDIA's data center revenue reached $47.5 billion in fiscal year 2024, surpassing its gaming business and making it one of the world's most valuable companies (NVIDIA, 2024).
Part V: The Competition Landscape—Why Alternatives Struggle
AMD: The Perpetual Runner-Up
AMD has long been NVIDIA's primary competitor in GPUs, but has struggled to gain significant AI market share despite competitive hardware. AMD's MI300 series accelerators offer impressive specifications—sometimes matching or exceeding NVIDIA's GPUs in raw compute or memory capacity.
The problem is software. AMD's ROCm (Radeon Open Compute) platform, while improving, lacks CUDA's maturity and ecosystem. Porting CUDA code to ROCm requires significant engineering effort, and many CUDA features and libraries have no ROCm equivalent. For companies with existing CUDA codebases, switching to AMD means months of development work with uncertain outcomes.
AMD has made progress in specific niches—particularly where customers prioritize cost over ecosystem (like some cloud providers offering lower-cost GPU instances)—but remains a distant second in AI accelerators.
Intel: Late to the Party
Intel, despite being the dominant CPU manufacturer, missed the GPU revolution for AI. The company's discrete GPU efforts (Arc series) focus primarily on gaming and professional graphics, not AI. Intel's AI accelerator strategy centers on Gaudi chips (acquired from Habana Labs) and integrated AI features in CPUs (like AMX instructions).
While Intel's chips show promise for specific inference workloads, they face the same ecosystem challenge as AMD. Additionally, Intel's manufacturing challenges (delays in advanced process nodes) have hindered its ability to compete on raw performance.
Google TPUs: The Closed Ecosystem
Google's Tensor Processing Units (TPUs) represent a different approach: custom ASICs optimized specifically for AI, available exclusively through Google Cloud. TPUs offer excellent performance for TensorFlow workloads and can be cost-effective for certain applications.
However, TPUs' closed ecosystem limits their impact. They're only available via Google Cloud (not for purchase), primarily optimized for Google's frameworks, and lack the flexibility of general-purpose GPUs. For companies wanting on-premises hardware or using PyTorch, TPUs aren't an option.
China's Domestic Alternatives: The Geopolitical Dimension
As discussed in our previous analysis, U.S. export restrictions have forced China to develop domestic alternatives like Huawei Ascend and Cambricon. These chips achieve approximately 60% of NVIDIA's performance and are rapidly improving.
China's approach demonstrates both the possibility and difficulty of competing with NVIDIA. Despite massive investment, government support, and a captive market, Chinese chips still lag in performance and software maturity. Huawei's CANN software platform, despite being open-sourced in 2025 to accelerate adoption, has only 7 years of development compared to CUDA's 17 years.
The China example proves that hardware alone isn't enough—the software ecosystem is equally critical.
Part VI: Implications for Manufacturing and Robotics
Why This Matters for Industrial Applications
For companies in manufacturing and robotics, understanding NVIDIA's dominance has practical implications:
1. Technology Selection: When deploying AI for machine vision, predictive maintenance, or robot control, the default choice is NVIDIA hardware because that's what models are trained on and optimized for.
2. Skills and Talent: Engineers with CUDA experience are abundant; those with expertise in alternative platforms are scarce. Choosing NVIDIA means easier hiring and knowledge transfer—a critical factor when scaling AI initiatives.
3. Ecosystem Access: Pre-trained models, reference designs, and industry-specific solutions (like NVIDIA Isaac for robotics) are readily available for NVIDIA platforms. We help clients leverage these resources to accelerate deployment timelines.
4. Future-Proofing: NVIDIA's continued investment in AI ensures that new techniques and optimizations will target their platform first. This matters for multi-year deployments where adopting emerging AI methods is crucial to maintaining competitive advantage.
However, NVIDIA's dominance also creates challenges:
Cost: NVIDIA GPUs command premium pricing due to limited competition. An H100 costs $25,000-$40,000, making large-scale deployments expensive.
Availability: High demand and supply constraints can make NVIDIA GPUs difficult to procure, especially during AI booms.
Vendor Lock-In: Heavy investment in CUDA code creates switching costs, reducing negotiating leverage.
The FPGA Alternative for Edge Applications
For certain manufacturing and robotics applications—particularly edge inference with requirements for deterministic latency, low power consumption, or real-time processing—FPGAs offer compelling alternatives to GPUs.
FPGAs (Field-Programmable Gate Arrays) provide:
- Deterministic Latency: Critical for safety-critical applications like robot control
- Low Power: Important for battery-powered or heat-constrained environments
- Customization: Hardware can be optimized for specific models and workloads
- Real-Time Processing: No operating system overhead or scheduling delays
While FPGAs can't match GPUs for training large models, they excel at inference for specific applications. Companies like Xilinx (now AMD) offer AI-optimized FPGAs with tools (Vitis AI) that can compile PyTorch and TensorFlow models for FPGA deployment.
For manufacturing applications requiring reliable, low-latency AI inference—such as defect detection on production lines or robot vision systems—FPGAs represent a viable alternative that avoids NVIDIA dependency while offering unique advantages.
Part VII: The Future—Will NVIDIA's Dominance Continue?
Emerging Challenges
Despite NVIDIA's strong position, several factors could erode its dominance:
1. Open Standards: Initiatives like ONNX (Open Neural Network Exchange) enable model portability across hardware platforms, reducing lock-in. If models can easily run on any hardware, CUDA's ecosystem advantage diminishes.
2. Framework Abstraction: Modern AI frameworks increasingly abstract away hardware details. Developers write PyTorch code without directly touching CUDA, making it easier to support multiple backends.
3. Custom Silicon: Major tech companies (Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Meta) are developing custom AI chips optimized for their specific workloads, reducing dependence on NVIDIA.
4. Geopolitical Fragmentation: Export restrictions are forcing the development of alternative ecosystems (particularly in China), creating parallel technology stacks that could eventually compete globally.
5. New Architectures: Emerging AI techniques might favor different hardware architectures. For example, sparse neural networks or neuromorphic computing could play to different strengths than dense matrix multiplication.
NVIDIA's Response
NVIDIA isn't standing still. The company continues to innovate at a breathtaking pace:
- Blackwell Architecture (2025): Now shipping to hyperscalers worldwide, delivering up to 25x less cost and energy consumption than its predecessor for trillion-parameter LLMs
- Rubin Platform (announced CES January 2026): The next-generation platform featuring six co-designed chips—Vera CPU, Rubin GPU, NVLink 6 Switch, ConnectX-9 SuperNIC, BlueField-4 DPU, and Spectrum-6 Ethernet Switch. NVIDIA claims a 10x reduction in inference token cost and 4x fewer GPUs needed to train mixture-of-experts models compared to Blackwell. Every major cloud provider (AWS, Google, Microsoft, Oracle) and AI lab (OpenAI, Anthropic, Meta, xAI) has committed to adopting Rubin (NVIDIA, 2026)
- Omniverse Platform: Expanding into AI-powered simulation and digital twins
- Automotive Solutions: NVIDIA DRIVE for autonomous vehicles
- Robotics: NVIDIA Isaac platform for AI-powered robots
The annual cadence from Blackwell to Rubin reinforces a key point: NVIDIA isn't just maintaining its lead, it's accelerating it. By expanding beyond pure AI acceleration into complete solutions for specific industries, NVIDIA continues to deepen its moat and solidify its central position in the AI ecosystem.
Key Takeaways for Business Leaders
Whether you're implementing AI in manufacturing, developing robotic systems, or planning enterprise AI infrastructure, understanding NVIDIA's position is essential for strategic decision-making:
Technical Decisions
1. Performance Matters: GPUs deliver 10-100× faster performance than CPUs for AI workloads. For time-sensitive applications like real-time machine vision or predictive maintenance, this isn't just convenient—it's often the difference between feasible and impossible.
2. Software Ecosystem Is King: CUDA's 17-year head start creates 6-18 months of switching costs. When evaluating alternatives, factor in not just hardware costs but engineering time for porting and optimization.
3. Consider Your Workload: Training large models demands NVIDIA GPUs. Edge inference for manufacturing applications may benefit from FPGAs or other specialized hardware with lower power consumption and deterministic latency.
Strategic Planning
4. Budget for Vendor Lock-In: Heavy investment in CUDA code creates switching costs. Plan your architecture with potential migration paths, or accept lock-in as the cost of leveraging the best ecosystem.
5. Monitor Competition: Open standards (ONNX), custom silicon (Google TPU, AWS Inferentia), and geopolitical pressures (China's domestic alternatives) could shift the landscape. Stay informed about alternatives that might better serve specific use cases.
6. Think Full-Stack: NVIDIA's advantage isn't just chips—it's integrated hardware, networking, and software. When comparing costs, consider the total solution, not just GPU pricing.
Practical Applications
7. Leverage Pre-Trained Models: NVIDIA's ecosystem provides industry-specific solutions (Isaac for robotics, Clara for healthcare) that accelerate deployment. Starting from scratch ignores years of optimization work.
8. Skills and Talent: Engineers with CUDA experience are abundant; expertise in alternative platforms is scarce. Your technology choice affects hiring, training, and knowledge transfer.
9. Future-Proofing: NVIDIA's continued AI investment ensures new techniques and optimizations target their platform first. This matters for long-term deployments where you'll adopt emerging AI methods.
Conclusion: The Perfect Storm
So why does AI need NVIDIA? The answer is a perfect storm of technical architecture, strategic foresight, ecosystem development, and timing:
Technical: GPUs' parallel processing architecture is fundamentally better suited for AI workloads than CPUs, providing 10-100× performance advantages.
Strategic: NVIDIA's $10 billion investment in CUDA created a software ecosystem that's nearly impossible for competitors to replicate, with 17 years of libraries, tools, and community knowledge.
Timing: AlexNet's 2012 breakthrough came just as NVIDIA's CUDA platform matured, creating a flywheel effect that propelled NVIDIA to the center of AI research and development.
Execution: NVIDIA evolved from a chip company to a full-stack AI infrastructure provider, offering hardware, networking, and software optimized for every stage of the AI pipeline.
For business leaders and technologists, understanding this dominance is crucial for making informed decisions about AI infrastructure, recognizing both the benefits of NVIDIA's ecosystem and the risks of vendor lock-in. As AI continues to transform industries from manufacturing to healthcare to autonomous systems, NVIDIA's position at the center of this revolution will shape technology choices, business strategies, and competitive dynamics for years to come.
The question isn't whether AI needs NVIDIA—it's whether this dependence will persist as the technology matures and alternatives emerge. For now, at least, NVIDIA's combination of hardware excellence and ecosystem lock-in makes it the indispensable foundation of the AI revolution.
References
Baji, T. (2017). GPU: The biggest key processor for AI and parallel processing. Photomask Japan 2017: XXIV Symposium on Photomask and Next-Generation Lithography Mask Technology, 10454. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2279088
Buber, E., & Banu, D. (2018). Performance analysis and CPU vs GPU comparison for deep learning. 2018 6th International Conference on Control Engineering & Information Technology (CEIT), 1-6. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/CEIT.2018.8751930
Cusumano, M. (2024). Nvidia at the center of the generative AI ecosystem—For now: Assessing the ascent of Nvidia. Communications of the ACM. https://cacm.acm.org/opinion/nvidia-at-the-center-of-the-generative-ai-ecosystem-for-now/
Huang, J. (2024). Why Jensen Huang loves the "AI bubble" stories. Medium. https://machine-learning-made-simple.medium.com/why-jensen-huang-loves-the-ai-bubble-stories-a57730f21abb
Kempner Institute. (2025). Graphics processing units and artificial intelligence. Harvard University. https://kempnerinstitute.harvard.edu/news/graphics-processing-units-and-artificial-intelligence/
Kim, T. (2024). The Nvidia way: Jensen Huang and the making of a tech giant. HarperCollins Publishers.
Krizhevsky, A., Sutskever, I., & Hinton, G. E. (2012). ImageNet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 25, 1097-1105.
McMahon, M. C. (2025, May 5). Can Huawei take on Nvidia's CUDA? ChinaTalk. https://www.chinatalk.media/p/can-huawei-compete-with-cuda
Mizuho Securities. (2024). AI accelerator market analysis report. Investment Research Division.
NVIDIA Corporation. (2024). Fiscal year 2024 annual report. https://investor.nvidia.com/
Pure Storage. (2025, February 22). CPU vs. GPU for machine learning. Pure Storage Blog. https://blog.purestorage.com/purely-technical/cpu-vs-gpu-for-machine-learning/
Se, K. (2024, May 16). How ImageNet, AlexNet and GPUs changed AI forever. Turing Post. https://www.turingpost.com/p/cvhistory6
NVIDIA Corporation. (2026, January 5). NVIDIA kicks off the next generation of AI with Rubin — six new chips, one incredible AI supercomputer. NVIDIA Newsroom. https://investor.nvidia.com/news/press-release-details/2026/NVIDIA-Kicks-Off-the-Next-Generation-of-AI-With-Rubin--Six-New-Chips-One-Incredible-AI-Supercomputer/
Yoffie, D. B., & von Bargen, S. (2024). Nvidia, Inc. in 2024 and the future of AI (Harvard Business School Case Study). Harvard Business School Publishing.
Published: October 2025